northcape wrote:I don't even know what a "warmist" is, I can only guess.

Right, I don't know a lot of climate change, and I never claimed that.

The great majority of people are agnostic about ''climate change' including the science professions.

Yet you chimed in by claiming that my example of lobbyists promoting AGW was a nonsense, without offering any evidence beyond vague claims about peer reviews of published literature on the subject, which I have already responded to.So why make the claim? As I have already said, a more open person would have asked why I mentioned it as an example of political correctness and not as you have done denounced it.

And RF, I never attributed you or anybody else here as a right-winger. I don't know any of you to make such a statement. This is a general statement to describe a movement or group in the society, a label. Like "the" media or "the" liberals.

No, but you inferred it, just as you tried to associate my view with that of President Trump, who you evidently disapprove of.

You are quite right, you do not know me, just as you did not expect me to show that AGW is promoted by lobbyists using political campaigning tactics. What your view does show is that a lot of people have blandly accepted the view of these lobbyists without stopping to think hard about it and this is the essence of effective propaganda. I always remember the mantra of Joseph Geobbels - the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed.

The thing about political correctness is the interpretation of history, as any Marxist will tell you that history reflects values and the telling of history cannot be value free.Further I am reminded of the view that history is what the winners want it to be. If those winners, whoever rules over us, favour an open society as Karl Popper defines it then there shouldn't be too much of a problem.But if our rulers impose a totalitarian ideology there is no open society, only a closed interpretation of history. An interpretation that must be right because they say so. Or else.......

Gentlemen, Please!This topic was originally intended to be a light hearted change from the normal discussions that we have on this Forum and certainly not intended to upset or in any way or cause rudeness to be used between those who contribute to it. Perhaps enough has been said.Please Mr Administrator , shut it down

I came in to defend Nelson's statue partly because I tend to believe that the RN in Nelson's day was the best equal opportunity employer of its time. You could be the son of a slave like Perkins or you could start as a seaman and rise to admiral like Anson. The only thing that mattered was that you were good at killing Frenchmen. Nelson ended up on his column as the representative of that excellent organisation but we can certainly criticise his actions on occasions. For example, he was involved in terrible repression at Naples but that just reflected that he was also willing to kill anyone helping the French.

The climate change story is weird because the basic science assuming a uniform Earth with no clouds is rather simple and it is odd that anyone would doubt that such a simple model would heat if CO2 was added to its atmosphere. Of course, the science of how much the real Earth will heat up is very complicated but some heating seems obvious.

The trouble is that humans are very good at detecting a con as a result of their evolution and telling people that they must pay more for their energy is likely to activate their suspicions especially if the leaders all fly to some distant destination, releasing a huge amount of CO2, to agree on that programme.

Sorry but I don't understand you. I tend to believe the "consensus" estimates of the likely future global warming. I don't know enough to evaluate the scary possibilities with large positive feedbacks.However, my point was that political leaders who claim to accept that science don't act as if they believe it. A good example is the hostility of many towards nuclear power.

I see there are twenty plus posts in which the poster unable to mount a rational argument or rebuttal on the political issues or associated scientific issues, has resorted to labeling, ridiculing, and attempted discrediting those with whom they disagree.

As students of history here, I should not need to specify whose tactics these are historically. Rhetorically pinning a yellow star on the lapels of ones opponents as means of silencing their speech instead of engaging in civil or scientific debate is counter to the values of academic freedom and scientific inquiry. No amount of virtue signalling can cloak what is going on here.

Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Dave Saxton wrote:I see there are twenty plus posts in which the poster unable to mount a rational argument or rebuttal on the political issues or associated scientific issues, has resorted to labeling, ridiculing, and attempted discrediting those with whom they disagree. ...snip...

I am slightly baffled by your position.

You presumably believe that Earth's atmosphere causes Earth to have a higher average temperature than a planet at the same position without an atmosphere. You presumably believe that gases that can absorb infrared radiation, including water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane, play an important role in that effect. You presumably also accept the observation that the carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is increasing (The Keeling Curve).

I do not see why you do not expect such an increase in the carbon dioxide concentration to cause some increase in the Earth's average temperature. I must admit that I have not remembered the details but I thought that a very crude calculation with no feedbacks predicts a response quite close to the observed warming since about 1950. Was I being fooled?

Of course, once we get to feedbacks, things quickly get complicated. However, one only gets feedbacks once there has been some increase in the temperature.

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen, Please!This topic was originally intended to be a light hearted change from the normal discussions that we have on this Forum and certainly not intended to upset or in any way or cause rudeness to be used between those who contribute to it. Perhaps enough has been said.Please Mr Administrator , shut it down

Well - yes.

I think the problem started when I mentioned ''climate change'' and AGW as an example of a politically correct process. The example was given as an illustration. It was not intended by me to provoke a debate on the subject such that the overall thrust of the thread has been hijacked.

The response to my example of the AGW issue by two forum members illustrates exactly my point that political correctness is a tool used by lobbyists and campaigners to destroy any contrary view to their own. The two members response has been reckless abuse and denunciation of my standpoint. When challenged to justify their positions they have avoided any rational argument to my points. For the first time in over ten years of using this forum I have now reported to the administrator one forum member for using foul and abusive language.

I do indeed think enough has been said. However note that the problem is only been caused here by the ignorance and bigotry of two forum members, one of whom is a mirror image of the parody that person presents. That person does remind me of the Gestapo agents who readily found their way into the Stasi because they were living in the DDR - the methods of naziism and Marxist-Leninism are virtually identical, the only difference is in the political language that is correct.

Mostlyharmless wrote:You presumably believe that Earth's atmosphere causes Earth to have a higher average temperature than a planet at the same position without an atmosphere. You presumably believe that gases that can absorb infrared radiation, including water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane, play an important role in that effect. You presumably also accept the observation that the carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is increasing (The Keeling Curve).

I do not see why you do not expect such an increase in the carbon dioxide concentration to cause some increase in the Earth's average temperature..

I have quoted this because at last we have some actual scientific analysis.

For myself, as I acknowledge that the quote was not addressed specifically to me, I concur that there has been a slight increase in global temperatures that is caused by a natural process. Periods of warming and cooling can be traced back over millions of years. Over the last 350 years there has been a warming in the northern hemisphere from a cold period due to the natural cycles of the sun. Human activity as a contributor to that warming in my view is insignificant, although not zero.

The carbon dioxide content of Earth's atmosphere has fluctuated substantially of the millennia. Currently it has been only a trace gas and as such insufficient to trigger a warming process on its own. There is evidence that the CO2 content of Earth's atmosphere is starting to increase - but that increase is not material to rises in global temperatures.

Methane is even more of a trace gas. It is a very light gas and Earth's gravity is insufficient to hold on to it, so most of the methane will vent into outer space.

We are now past the current solar maximum. I would expect temperatures over the next 350 years to remain stable with possibly a small temperature increase. If there was no human activity on Earth I would expect temperatures to gradually reduce to where they were in Tudor times, so yes there is a small human impact. But not of the order of the AGW lobbyists.

If you feel that my view is unreasonable you can start the debate in another thread dedicated to that subject.

Come on chaps,i suppose we all get a little too enthusiastic in our replies sometimes, look at some of the debates we've had on the merits of one ship over another!Its time to let it go, we've all had our say and a bit of fun whilst saying it, shall we leave it at that?